The sentence for the petitioners was modified to reflect the time already served, maintaining their conviction under the Rajasthan Excise Act while considering their custody duration.

Judgment

28/05/2025

1. Instant revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 08.09.2006 passed in Cr. Appeals No.11/2005 & 9/2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellate court’) by which the appellate court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal and upheld the judgment dated 22.01.2005 passed in Cr. Original Case No.285/1998 by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’). The learned trial court convicted the present petitioners for offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act and sentenced them to undergo one year’s S.I. and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month’s S.I.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.04.1996, SHO, Police Station Bagra received a secret information, upon which police personnel reached at Bagra-Ramseen Road near Beebalsar. At about 4 AM a car was coming from Bagra and Police signaled to stop the car but it did not stop. Thereafter Police chased the car and stopped it at Sumergarh in which the present petitioners were sitting. Upon conduction search, illegal country-made liquor was recovered from the car for which petitioners had no licence or permit. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the petitioners in the Court concerned.

3. Thereafter, the trial court framed the charges for offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act against the petitioners who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses in support of its case. Thereafter, statements of the accused-petitioner under section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 22.01.2005 convicted and sentenced the accused-petitioners for aforesaid offence.

6. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, which came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 08.09.2006.

Hence, this revision petition against the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioners.

7. At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that he does not challenge the finding of conviction but since the occurrence is related to the year 1996 and out of total sentence of one year’s S.I., the accused petitioners have remained behind bars for some time, therefore, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the petitioners for the aforesaid offences may be reduced to the period already undergone by them.

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioners and submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused petitioners nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.

9. I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the courts below regarding conviction of the accused-petitioners.

10. Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 1996 and the petitioners have so far undergone a considerable period in custody out of one year of total sentence, so also suffered the agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the petitioners have remained behind the bars for some time, it will be just and proper, if the sentence modified by the appellate court for offence under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act is reduced to the period already undergone by the petitioners.

11. Accordingly, the